Who is this prophet?

In John 1:19-21, the bible says [i]And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" [/i]

Muslims use this verse to claim that the Bible had fortold the coming of their 9/11 messenger.Whatever they think, I have no idea who this prophet is supposed to be other then the Messiah.But the verse above makes a distinction between Christ and the Prophet.Can someone explain what this passage is taking about? Thanks

233 Then when he says, Are you the Prophet? the third question is presented. Here there is a difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High,” why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a prophet?

There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: “if there is a delay, wait for it” (Hb 2:2).. But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out with his finger: “Look, there is the Lamb of God,” as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord says that he is more than a prophet [Mt 11:9].

Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you.” And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that “greatest of the prophets.” And this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the article is used here as signifying the prophet, as it were, antonomastically.

In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since “I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed” (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, Are you the Prophet? they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called “prophet” in a special way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, “Let him come to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel” [2 Kgs 5:8]. And to this John answers, No, I am not Elisha.

[quote=St. John Chrysostom's Homily 16 on the Gospel of John]John 1:19"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you?"

1. A dreadful thing is envy, beloved, a dreadful thing and a pernicious, to the enviers, not to the envied. For it harms and wastes them first, like some mortal venom deeply seated in their souls; and if by chance it injure its objects, the harm it does is small and trifling, and such as brings greater gain than loss. Indeed not in the case of envy only, but in every other, it is not he that has suffered, but he that has done the wrong, who receives injury. For had not this been so, Paul would not have enjoined the disciples rather to endure wrong than to inflict it, when he says, "Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" 1 Corinthians 6:7 Well he knew, that destruction ever follows, not the injured party, but the injuring. All this I have said, by reason of the envy of the Jews. Because those who had flocked from the cities to John, and had condemned their own sins, and caused themselves to be baptized, repenting as it were after Baptism, send to ask him, "Who are you?" Of a truth they were the offspring of vipers, serpents, and even worse if possible than this. O evil and adulterous and perverse generation, after having been baptized, do you then become vainly curious, and question about the Baptist? What folly can be greater than this of yours? How was it that you came forth? That you confessed your sins, that you ran to the Baptist? How was it that you asked him what you must do? When in all this you were acting unreasonably, since you knew not the principle and purpose of his coming. Yet of this the blessed John said nothing, nor does he charge or reproach them with it, but answers them with all gentleness.

It is worth while to learn why he did thus. It was, that their wickedness might be manifest and plain to all men. Often did John testify of Christ to the Jews, and when he baptized them he continually made mention of Him to his company, and said, "I indeed baptize you with water, but there comes One after me who is mightier than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matthew 3:11 With regard to him they were affected by a human feeling; for, tremblingly attentive to the opinion of the world, and looking to "the outward appearance" 2 Corinthians 10:7, they deemed it an unworthy thing that he should be subject to Christ. Since there were many things that pointed out John for an illustrious person. In the first place, his distinguished and noble descent; for he was the son of a chief priest. Then his conversation, his austere mode of life, his contempt of all human things; for despising dress and table, and house and food itself, he had passed his former time in the desert. In the case of Christ all was the contrary of this. His family was mean, (as they often objected to Him, saying, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren James and Joses?") Matthew 13:55; and that which was supposed to be His country was held in such evil repute, that even Nathanael said, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John 1:46 His mode of living was ordinary, and His garments not better than those of the many. For He was not girt with a leathern girdle, nor was His raiment of hair, nor did He eat honey and locusts. But He fared like all others, and was present at the feasts of wicked men and publicans, that He might draw them to Him. Which thing the Jews not understanding reproached Him with, as He also says Himself, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." Matthew 11:19 When then John continually sent them from himself to Jesus, who seemed to them a meaner person, being ashamed and vexed at this, and wishing rather to have him for their teacher, they did not dare to say so plainly, but send to him, thinking by their flattery to induce him to confess that he was the Christ. They do not therefore send to him mean men, as in the case of Christ, for when they wished to lay hold on Him, they sent servants, and then Herodians, and the like, but in this instance, "priests and Levites," and not merely "priests," but those "from Jerusalem," that is, the more honorable; for the Evangelist did not notice this without a cause. And they send to ask, "Who are you?" Yet the manner of his birth was well known to all, so that all said, "What manner of child shall this be?" Luke 1:66; and the report had gone forth into all the hill country. And afterwards when he came to Jordan, all the cities were set on the wing, and came to him from Jerusalem, and from all Judæa, to be baptized. Why then do they now ask? Not because they did not know him, (how could that be, when he had been made manifest in so many ways?) but because they wished to bring him to do that which I have mentioned.

2. Hear then how this blessed person answered to the intention with which they asked the question, not to the question itself. When they said, "Who are you?" he did not at once give them what would have been the direct answer, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." But what did he? He removed the suspicion they had formed; for, says the Evangelist, being asked, "Who are you?"John 1:20"He confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ."

Observe the wisdom of the Evangelist. He mentions this for the third time, to set forth the excellency of the Baptist, and their wickedness and folly. And Luke also says, that when the multitudes supposed him to be the Christ, he again removes their suspicion. This is the part of an honest servant, not only not to take to himself his master's honor, but also to reject it when given to him by the many. But the multitudes arrived at this supposition from simplicity and ignorance; these questioned him from an ill intention, which I have mentioned, expecting, as I said, to draw him over to their purpose by their flattery. Had they not expected this, they would not have proceeded immediately to another question, but would have been angry with him for having given them an answer foreign to their enquiry, and would have said, "Why, did we suppose that? Did we come to ask you that?" But now as taken and detected in the fact, they proceed to another question, and say,John 1:21"What then? Are you Elias? And he says, I am not."

For they expected that Elias also would come, as Christ declares; for when His disciples enquired, "How then do the scribes say that Elias must first come?" Matthew 17:10 He replied, "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things." Then they ask, "Are you that prophet? And he answered, No." Matthew 17:10 Yet surely he was a prophet. Wherefore then does he deny it? Because again he looks to the intention of his questioners. For they expected that some special prophet should come, because Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet of your brethren like me, unto Him shall you harken." Deuteronomy 18:15 Now this was Christ. Wherefore they do not say, "Are you a prophet?" meaning thereby one of the ordinary prophets; but the expression, "Are you the prophet?" with the addition of the article, means, "Are you that Prophet who was foretold by Moses?" and therefore he denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was "that Prophet."John 1:22"Then said they unto him, Who are you? That we may give an answer to them that sent us. What do you say of yourself?"

Observe them pressing him more vehemently, urging him, repeating their questions, and not desisting; while he first kindly removes false opinions concerning himself, and then sets before them one which is true. For, says he,John 1:23"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias."

When he had spoken some high and lofty words concerning Christ, as if (replying) to their opinion, he immediately betook himself to the Prophet to draw from thence confirmation of his assertion.John 1:24-25"And [says the Evangelist] they who were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why do you baptize then, if you be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet?"

Do you see not without reason I said that they wished to bring him to this? And the reason why they did not at first say so was, lest they should be detected by all men. And then when he said, "I am not the Christ," they, being desirous to conceal what they were plotting within, go on to "Elias," and "that Prophet." But when he said that he was not one of these either, after that, in their perplexity, they cast aside the mask, and without any disguise show clearly their treacherous intention, saying, "Why do you baptize then, if you be not that Christ?" And then again, wishing to throw some obscurity over the thing, they add the others also, "Elias," and "that Prophet." For when they were not able to trip him by their flattery, they thought that by an accusation they could compel him to say the thing that was not.

What folly, what insolence, what ill-timed officiousness! You were sent to learn who and whence he might be, not to lay down laws for him also. This too was the conduct of men who would compel him to confess himself to be the Christ. Still not even now is he angry, nor does he, as might have been expected, say to them anything of this sort, "Do you give orders and make laws for me?" but again shows great gentleness towards them.John 1:26-27"I baptize with water: but there stands one among you, whom you know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."

3. What could the Jews have left to say to this? For even from this the accusation against them cannot be evaded, the decision against them admits not of pardon, they have given sentence against themselves. How? In what way? They deemed John worthy of credit, and so truthful, that they might believe him not only when he testified of others, but also when he spoke concerning himself. For had they not been so disposed, they would not have sent to learn from him what related to himself. Because you know that the only persons whom we believe, especially when speaking of themselves, are those whom we suppose to be more veracious than any others. And it is not this alone which closes their mouths, but also the disposition with which they had approached him; for they came forth to him at first with great eagerness, even though afterwards they altered. Both which things Christ declared, when He said, "He was a burning (and a shining) light, and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." Moreover, his answer made him yet more worthy of credit. For (Christ) says, "He that seeks not his own glory, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." Now this man sought it not, but refers the Jews to another. And those who were sent were of the most trustworthy among them, and of the highest rank, so that they could have in no way any refuge or excuse, for the unbelief which they exhibited towards Christ. Wherefore did you not receive the things spoken concerning Him by John? You sent men who held the first rank among you, you enquired by them, you heard what the Baptist answered, they manifested all possible officiousness, sought into every point, named all the persons you suspected him to be; and yet most publicly and plainly he confessed that he was neither "Christ," nor "Elias" nor "that Prophet." Nor did he stop even there, but also informed them who he was, and spoke of the nature of his own baptism, that it was but a slight and mean thing, nothing more than some water, and told of the superiority of the Baptism given by Christ; he also cited Esaias the prophet, testifying of old very long ago, and calling Christ "Lord" Isaiah 40:3, but giving him the names of "minister and servant." What after this ought they to have done? Ought they not to have believed on Him who was witnessed of, to have worshipped Him, to have confessed Him to be God? For the character and heavenly wisdom of the witness showed that his testimony proceeded, not from flattery, but from truth; which is plain also from this, that no man prefers his neighbor to himself, nor, when he may lawfully give honor to himself, will yield it up to another, especially when it is so great as that of which we speak. So that John would not have renounced this testimony (as belonging) to Christ, had He not been God. For though he might have rejected it for himself as being too great for his own nature, yet he would not have assigned it to another nature that was beneath it.

"But there stands One among you, whom you know not." Reasonable it was that Christ should mingle among the people as one of the many, because everywhere He taught men not to be puffed up and boastful. And in this place by "knowledge" the Baptist means a perfect acquaintance with Him, who and whence He was. And immediately next to this he puts, "Who comes after me"; all but saying, "Think not that all is contained in my baptism, for had that been perfect, Another would not have arisen after me to offer you a different One, but this of mine is a preparation and a clearing the way for that other. Mine is but a shadow and image, but One must come who shall add to this the reality. So that His very coming 'after me' especially declares His dignity: for had the first been perfect, no place would have been required for a second." "Is before me," is more honorable, brighter. And then, lest they should imagine that His superiority was found by comparison, desiring to establish His incomparableness, he says, "Whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose"; that is, who is not simply "before me," but before me in such a way, that I am not worthy to be numbered among the meanest of His servants. For to loose the shoe is the office of humblest service.

Now if John was not worthy to "unloose the latchet" Matthew 11:11, John, than whom "among them that are born of women there has not risen a greater," where shall we rank ourselves? If he who was equal to, or rather greater than, all the world, (for says Paul, "the world was not worthy" of them Hebrews 11:38 declares himself not worthy to be reckoned even among the meanest of those who should minister unto Him, what shall we say, who are full of ten thousand sins, and are as far from the excellence of John, as earth from heaven.

4. He then says that he himself is not "worthy so much as to unloose the latchet of His shoe"; while the enemies of the truth are mad with such a madness, as to assert that they are worthy to know Him even as He knows Himself. What is worse than such insanity, what more frenzied than such arrogance? Well has a wise man said, "The beginning of pride is not to know the Lord."

The devil would not have been brought down and become a devil, not being a devil before, had he not been sick of this disease. This it was that cast him out from that confidence, this sent him to the pit of fire, this was the cause of all his woes. For it is enough of itself to destroy every excellence of the soul, whether it find almsgiving, or prayer, or fasting, or anything. For, says the Evangelist, "That which is highly esteemed among men is impure before the Lord." Luke 16:15 — not quoted exactly Therefore it is not only fornication or adultery that are wont to defile those who practice them, but pride also, and that far more than those vices. Why? Because fornication though it is an unpardonable sin, yet a man may plead the desire; but pride cannot possibly find any cause or pretext of any sort whatever by which to obtain so much as a shadow of excuse; it is nothing but a distortion and most grievous disease of the soul, produced from no other source but folly. For there is nothing more foolish than a proud man, though he be surrounded with wealth, though he possess much of the wisdom of this world, though he be set in royal place, though he bear about with all things that among men appear desirable.

For if the man who is proud of things really good is wretched and miserable, and loses the reward of all those things, must not he who is exalted by things that are nought, and puffs himself up because of a shadow or the flower of the grass, (for such is this world's glory,) be more ridiculous than any, when he does just as some poor needy man might do, pining all his time with hunger, yet if ever he should chance one night to see a dream of good fortune, filled with conceit because of it?

O wretched and miserable! When your soul is perishing by a most grievous disease, when you are poor with utter poverty, are you high-minded because you have such and such a number of talents of gold? Because you have a multitude of slaves and cattle? Yet these are not yours; and if you dost not believe my words, learn from the experience of those who have gone before you. And if you are so drunken, that you can not be instructed even from what has befallen others, wait a little, and you shall know by what befalls yourself that these things avail you nothing, when gasping for life, and master not of a single hour, not even of a little moment, you shall unwillingly leave them to those who are about you, and these perhaps those whom you would not. For many have not been permitted even to give directions concerning them, but have departed suddenly, desiring to enjoy them, but not permitted, dragged from them, and forced to yield them up to others, giving place by compulsion to those to whom they would not. That this be not our case, let us, while we are yet in strength and health, send forward our riches hence to our own city, for thus only and in no other way shall we be able to enjoy them; so shall we lay them up in a place inviolate and safe. For there is nothing, there is nothing there that can take them from us; no death, no attested wills, no successors to inheritances, no false informations, no plottings against us, but he who has departed hence bearing away great wealth with him may enjoy it there for ever. Who then is so wretched as not to desire to revel in riches which are his own throughout? Let us then transfer our wealth, and remove it there. We shall not need for such a removal asses, or camels, or carriages, or ships, (God has relieved even us from this difficulty,) but we only want the poor, the lame, the crippled, the infirm. These are entrusted with this transfer, these convey our riches to heaven, these introduce the masters of such wealth as this to the inheritance of goods everlasting. Which may it be that we all attain through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

This is St. John Chrysostom's homily on the Gospel of John. The answer as to who 'that Prophet' is, according to St. John, is bolded. (If you can't find it, he says it is Christ).

[quote=St. Cyril's Commentary on the Gospel of John]And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

The Evangelist recalls his own words and endeavours to explain to us more fully (doing exceeding well) what he had already told us told us briefly as in summary. For having said There teas a man sent from God, whose name was John: the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, needs does he bring in the mode also of the witness given by him. For when, he says, the chiefs of the Jewish divisions after the Law, sent priests and Levites to him, bidding them ask him, what he would say of himself, then very clearly did he confess, spurning all shame for the truth�s sake. For he said, I am not the Christ. Therefore neither do I, says he, the compiler of this Book, lie saying of him, He was not the Light but to bear witness of the Light.

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, No.

Having said by way of explanation, he confessed, I am not the Christ; he tries to shew how or in what manner the confession was made; and he appears to me to wish thereby to lay bare the ill-instructedness of the Jews. For professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and puffed up at their knowledge of the Law, and ever putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, by their foolish questions they are convicted of being wholly uninstructed. For the hierophant Moses saying that the Lord should be tIpo4~i1rov revealed as a Prophet foretold to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst Of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb. The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the for-runner and fore-messenger, says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight: and in addition to these the Prophet Joel b says of the Tishbite (he was Elias) Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? Art thou Elias? And on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? And he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

What sayest thou of thyself? I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

He accuses them sharply as knowing nothing, and accredits the design or purpose entrusted to him by Prophetic testimony. For I come, he says, to say nothing else than that He, The Looked for, is at length at the doors, yea rather the Lord within the doors. Be ye ready to go whatsoever way He bids you, ye have gone the way given you through Moses, take up that by Christ: for this the choir of the holy Prophets foretold you.

From St. Cyril's Commentary. St. Cyril also believes that the 'Prophet' is a reference to Christ.

[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11526.msg138848#msg138848 date=1306958765]Thomas Aquinas' explanation makes more sense intuitively. John the baptizer already said he was not the Messiah, why say it again in another way?

I disagree. It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who misinterpreted their own scriptures thinking that the Prophet was someone other than the Messiah Himself. As St. Cyril says in his commentary:

There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? Art thou Elias? And on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? And he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

Please help me understand St. Cyril more accurately. Is he saying that when they asked if he was the prophet, they were asking him if he was the Messiah without realizing it, and that is why John answered no? If that is the case, they must have understood the prophet to be someone else, whether it was really Christ doesn't really matter. What matters is what they had in mind when they asked him. And what they had in mind could not have been Christ for the did not think "the prophet" was the messiah. . .

My reading of St. Cyril is that 'the Prophet' and the Messiah are one and the same person. As St. John Chrysostom says: 'For they expected that some special prophet should come, because Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet of your brethren like me, unto Him shall you harken." Deuteronomy 18:15.' This was a prophecy regarding the coming Messiah as well. The Jews misinterpreted this prophecy thinking that there would be someone else who would be the Prophet. In reality though, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. He is not just a prophet, but THE Prophet, the greatest of all the prophets; greater than Moses, Elijah or even the Baptist. John the Baptist knew that the Prophet the Pharisees and scribes were talking about was the Messiah and that is why he again said no again.

My point is: The Jews misinterpreted the passage to mean the prophet was separate from the messiah. John the baptizer did not, he understood they were one and the same. So when John answers, "no," he answers it to the wrong question because they aren't on the same page. It makes more sense to assume he is answering them in their ignorance, so he must understand that by "The prophet" they do not mean the messiah. I am finding difficultly articulating what I mean, I hope you can understand.

It appears to me that St Thomas Aquinas dismissed the interpretations of St John Chrysostom and St Cyril. It is improbable that he did not read their works. But since St Thomas Aquinas is not a church father in our church, I think we should dismiss his interpretations as well. One thing that I do ot understand is the reference to Christ in the OT is "Christ" or the 'Anointed one', but not a prophet (i am not sure though).I think there is a major difference between those two terms.Thus,the verses in John 1:19-21 are quite confusing.

TITL, Muslims think that 'that prophet' is their 9/11 messenger (ILSMark, i meant their prophet). They use 1 john 19-21 and Deuteronomy 18 to make their point. For example in Deuteronomy 18:18-19 God says: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.”

To the muslims, a prophet like Moses is their own prophet, the phrase "from among their brothers" is interpreted as the descendants of Ismael (as islamel was the brother of Isaac) and "I will put my words in is mouth" is the Quran.. But this is a mild claim. There are some brazen imamas out there who even teach "the Paraclete" refers to their Prophet.

The passage in Deutro which the verse in John 1;19-21 is a direct allusion to, speaks of a Prophet who is like Moses.If we compare the stories of Moses and Jesus, there are some parallelism.

For example, Moses was born at a time when Pharoah decreed that all male children of the Jews should be put to death. The same story is found in Jesus's life. As Moses freed the jews from the Bondage and Egyptian slavery and led them to the promised Land, our Lord freed us from the bondage of Adam's sin (actually eve's ) and opened for us the gates of heaven and eternal life. Jesus is the greater Moses.Thus,the explanaton of the Fathers does make real sense.

Thomas Aquinas is regarded to be a great theologian and Saint in the Catholic church.I fail to understand why he would reject the teachings of the Church Fathers in relation to the identity of 'That Prophet'? I thought, that both St Cyril and St John Chrysostom are recognized as doctors of the church by the Catholic church.

I wonder if the church fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit when they interpreted the scriptures.Is their teaching infallible?

I thank God for allowing me to find this topic. I was actually reading this part of the bible today and I read "the prophet" several times and I was confused as to why they asked "are you the Prophet" as opposed to a prophet. So thank you Ηεζεκιελ for posting this question! :)

I didn't know that we as Christians consider there to be a prophet above all and giving him the title the Prophet. I can see why there would be confusion around this with the muslims. So according to the church fathers St Cyril and St John Chrysostomm the title the Prophet refers to Jesus Christ the Messiah. The Apostle Peter also uses Prophet to refer to Jesus when he is preaching in Acts. "For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you." Acts 3:22. So this is a prophecy about Jesus.

[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11526.msg139184#msg139184 date=1307565454]I wonder if the church fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit when they interpreted the scriptures.Is their teaching infallible?

I thought there was no such thing as infallible in our church? We are all human beings and can make mistakes so we can't say that teachings of certain people are infallible right?

On a side note.. where do you find these commentaries and homilies by church fathers?I really love what Κηφᾶς posted up by our church fathers St Cyril ad St John Chrysostom. Please share the source, or link where you found it. ;)

I think the teachings of the Church fathers is infalliable.That is why we should always refer to their commentary. But, I wondered what prompted Thomas Aquainas to ignore their commentary on John 1:19-21 to end up with an entirely different name for 'the Prophet'.

[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11526.msg139254#msg139254 date=1307652211]I think the teachings of the Church fathers is infalliable.That is why we should always refer to their commentary.

No, the Fathers are not infallible. We refer to their writings because they are more knowledgeable then we are. They are men who dedicated their lives to fasting, prayer and studying the Scriptures. In other words, they are true theologians. We learn from them. However, there are times when even the Fathers do not agree. No human is infallible except Christ.

[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=11526.msg139254#msg139254 date=1307652211]I think the teachings of the Church fathers is infalliable.That is why we should always refer to their commentary.

No, the Fathers are not infallible. We refer to their writings because they are more knowledgeable then we are. They are men who dedicated their lives to fasting, prayer and studying the Scriptures. In other words, they are true theologians. We learn from them. However, there are times when even the Fathers do not agree. No human is infallible except Christ.

Thanks.Infact,you have answered this question in another unrelated thread lately.